Advertisement

The Relationship Between Adult Self-Efficacy and Scientific Competencies: the Moderating Effect of Gender

  • Chun-Yen Tsai
  • Tai-Chu Huang
Article

Abstract

This study investigated the relationship between adult self-efficacy in science and scientific competencies of Taiwanese citizens. Probability proportional to size sampling was used to select 1830 participants between the ages of 18 and 70. The research methods employed was survey research; analysis was conducted using hierarchical regression analysis. The results indicated that gender and self-efficacy have an explanatory power for scientific competencies. The predictive power of self-efficacy for scientific competencies was different for male and female groups. This study proposes several suggestions regarding science education policies in accordance with the research findings.

Keywords

Gender Scientific competencies Scientific literacy Self-efficacy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work reported here was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under grants NSC 101-2511-S-110-007-MY3. The authors also greatly appreciate the valuable suggestions of Prof. Huann-shyang Lin and the journal reviewers and editors.

Supplementary material

10763_2017_9869_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (115 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 115 kb)

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  3. Bauer, M. W., Allum, N., & Miller, S. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin, T. E., Marks, B., Demetrikopoulos, M. K., Rose, J., Pollard, E., Thomas, A., & Muldrow, L. L. (2017). Development and validation of scientific literacy scale for college preparedness in STEM with freshmen from diverse institutions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(4), 607–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chin, C. C., Yang, W. C., & Tuan, H. L. (2016). Argumentation in a socioscientific context and its influence on fundamental and derived science literacies. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(4), 603–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chiu, H. C. (2010). Quantitative research and statistical analysis in social & behavioral sciences. Taipei, Taiwan: Wunan Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Cross, S. (2009). Adult teaching and learning: Developing your practice. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Du, J., & MacEachern, S. N. (2008). Judgement post-stratification for designed experiments. Biometrics, 64(2), 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falk, J. H., & Needham, M. D. (2013). Factors contributing to adult knowledge of science and technology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(4), 431–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and understanding: Evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4), 455–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fang, Z. (2013). Disciplinary literacy in science: Developing science literacy through trade books. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 57(4), 274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fenichel, M., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2010). Surrounded by science: Learning science in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hammond, C., & Feinstein, L. (2005). The effects of adult learning on self-efficacy. London Review of Education, 3(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hardin, E. E., & Longhurst, M. O. (2016). Understanding the gender gap: Social cognitive changes during an introductory STEM course. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(2), 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jack, B. M., Lin, H. S., & Yore, L. D. (2014). The synergistic effect of affective factors on student learning outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 1084–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jameson, M. M., & Fusco, B. R. (2014). Math anxiety, math self-concept, and math self-efficacy in adult learners compared to traditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 64, 306–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kıran, D., & Sungur, S. (2012). Middle school students’ science self-efficacy and its sources: Examination of gender difference. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(5), 619–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Legewie, J., & DiPrete, T. A. (2014). The high school environment and the gender gap in science and engineering. Sociology of Education, 87(4), 259–280  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714547770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin, H. S. (2010). A survey on civic scientific literacy (NSC 98-2511-S-110-005). Kaohsiung City, Taiwan: Center for General Education, National Sun Yat-sen University.Google Scholar
  21. Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Huang, T. C. (2012). The role of emotional factors in building public scientific literacy and engagement with science. International Journal of Science Education, 34(1), 25–42.Google Scholar
  22. Lin, H. S., Lawrenz, F., Lin, S. F., & Hong, Z. R. (2013). Relationships among affective factors and preferred engagement in science-related activities. Understanding of Science, 22(8), 941–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.Google Scholar
  24. McCarthy, R. R., & Berger, J. (2008). Moving beyond cultural barriers: Successful strategies of female technology education teachers. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 65–79.Google Scholar
  25. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13(3), 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2009). PISA 2006 technical report. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2010). PISA 2009 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  28. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2013). PISA 2015 draft science framework. Paris: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume I). Paris, France: Author.Google Scholar
  30. Porras-Hernandez, L. H., & Salinas-Amescua, B. (2012). Nonparticipation in adult education from self-perceptions to alternative explanations. Adult Education Quarterly, 62(4), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pyo, J. (2016). Bridging in-school and out-of-school literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59(4), 421–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sarkar, M., & Corrigan, D. (2014). Bangladeshi science teachers’ perspectives of scientific literacy and teaching practices. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(5), 1117–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sandlin, J. A., Wright, R. R., & Clark, C. (2013). Reexamining theories of adult learning and adult development through the lenses of public pedagogy. Adult Education Quarterly, 63(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Snow, C. E., & Dibner, K. A. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sjøberg, S. (2015). PISA and global educational governance: A critique of the project, its uses and implications. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11, 111–127.Google Scholar
  37. Stine-Morrow, E. A. L., & Parisi, J. M. (2011). The adult development and cognition and learning. In K. Rubenson (Ed.), Adult learning and education (pp. 41–46). Saint Louis, MO: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Tsai, C. Y., Li, Y. Y., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2017). The relationships among adult affective factors, engagement in science, and scientific competencies. Adult Education Quarterly, 67(1), 30–47.Google Scholar
  39. Tsai, C. Y., Shien, P. P., Jack, B. M., Wu, K. C., Chou, C. Y., Wu, Y. Y., Liu, C. J., Chiu, H. L., Hung, J. F., Chao, D., & Huang, T. C. (2012). Effects of exposure to pseudoscientific television programs upon Taiwanese citizens’ pseudoscientific beliefs. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(2), 175–194.Google Scholar
  40. Tsai, L. T., Yang, C. C., & Chang, Y. J. (2015). Gender differences in factors affecting science performance of eighth grade Taiwan students. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 445–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tomasi, D., & Volkow, N. D. (2011). Laterality patterns of brain functional connectivity: Gender effects. Cerebral Cortex, 22(6), 1455–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tsui, M., Xu, X., Venator, E., & Wang, Y. (2016). Stereotype threat and gender: Math performance in Chinese college students. Chinese Sociological Review, 48(4), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Velayutham, A. J. M., & Fraser, B. (2012). Gender differences in student motivation and self-regulation in science learning: A multi-group structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(6), 1347–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (translation newly revised and edited by Alex Kozulin). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Wang, Y. H. (2012). The dominant sex dominates technology? An interpretation of the gendered-technology phenomenon. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 241–265.Google Scholar
  46. Wang, M.-T., & Degol, J. L. (2017). Gender gap in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM): Current knowledge, implications for practice, policy, and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waugh, R. F., & Addison, P. A. (1998). A Rasch measurement model analysis of the revised approaches to studying inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weisgram, E. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2005). Girls and science careers: The role of altruistic values and attitudes about scientific tasks. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 326–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Woods-McConney, A., Oliver, M. C., McConney, A., Schibeci, R., & Maor, D. (2014). Science engagement and literacy: A retrospective analysis for students in Canada and Australia. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1588–1608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xu, Y. (2015). Focusing on women in STEM: A longitudinal examination of gender-based earning gap of college graduates. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(4), 489–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zeldin, A., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for General EducationNational Sun Yat-sen UniversityKaohsiung CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations